Transmission of sin from Adam....

[Light of the East]

As I understand it, the Western Church looks at sin as being transmitted from Adam by the act of sexual intercourse (yes? no?). I believe somewhere I read that Augustine was the one who really got this ball rolling.

It led to the concept of "Original Sin" (yes? no?)

In that context, it is understandable that the Theotokos had to be Immaculately Conceived. Have to break that line of Original Sin.

So how does the Orthodox faith view the sin of Adam as affecting the cosmos and how do they see it being transmitted to the rest of the human race? Something is deeply wrong with us. Orthodoxy looks at it as disease, and sees the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality."

So how does Orthodoxy see the disease being transmitted?

Links to articles appreciated!

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Human nature, in Orthodoxy, is innately subject to suffering and death (that includes Christ's nature, the teaching that his humanity was incorruptible prior to death is the heresy known as aphthartodocetism); note this is not the same as saying humans have an innately sinful nature, sinful nature is something taken on. Anyway, humans can partake of God's incorruptibility, which is what the idea was, but the fall severed our connection with that. Hence everyone is subject to death, and that even includes the Theotokos, although "dormition" is a more precise term for her case (and for all our cases, hopefully).

 

[Light of the East]

Okay.....let's see if I have this right.

Humans are not, by nature immortal. God offered Adam a chance to take on immortality, but he blew it in the Garden.

When Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden, the whole human race yet to come suffered from its natural state of mortality. Death is not God smacking us, it is the natural consequence of not having relationship/union with Christ/God.

So when Adam was cast from the Garden (which I have read as some saying the Garden is metaphor for the very presence of God) then all of us, yet unborn, went out into the wilderness of sin outside the Garden with him.

So far, so good?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yeah.

 

[Light of the East]

Well, you realize that this makes a HUGE difference in how one views everything regarding salvation and our relationship with God.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yeah, there's a significant difference between the Orthodox and Western Christians on this point.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have heard at least one Catholic theologian deny the points in your first post, but I've also heard that's what the Catholics teach. I am in no position to say for sure.

I have heard things that might be interpreted a little differently regarding the first humans. I think it is safe to say that death entered the world (and became the fate of all humans) as a result of the curse, because of the fall/Adam's sin. I think that implies that Adam would not have died otherwise ... but I have also heard he was not technically in a state of immortality either. (Remember "lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever" - I think God did Adam an act of mercy by not letting him live forever in that state.)

How sin is transmitted - I have heard it is more a matter of the world being infected with sin. People sin all around us, we all see and grow up in sin. We do not say that man has a "sin nature" that I have ever heard. And yet, something is "bent" in us if you will.

I'll stop there. I don't want to say anything wrong (and welcome and request correction if I have). I listen to and read a variety of Orthodox teachers and Saints, and sometimes it takes hearing from a number on the very same topic to be sure my understanding is thoroughly Orthodox, and I have not yet reached that level of confidence in this matter.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As I understand it, the Western Church looks at sin as being transmitted from Adam by the act of sexual intercourse (yes? no?).

(I was 'raised' in the "Western Church" culture, church, schools and life)
I never heard this taught in any Christian congregation.
(I have heard similar very strange stories told by people from other countries, "third world"? very poor countries,
taught to them by the one world church)
i.e. NOT from "Western "...
but one man I met who was raised in the USA ("Western") said he was taught budhist were 'saved' and he had some other very strange ideas his priest taught him. (this man wasn't saved though, and isn't yet).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Many Protestant congregations simply appeal to a "fallen sin nature" and don't address how it is transmitted, but there are usually a Scripture or two pulled out to support it going back to Adam (all sinned IN Adam most often). But there are indeed some of those that teach sin is passed "through the man" and there is a sexual connotation there (it may be said "through the seed of the man). This is usually connected with the Virgin birth as the reason why Jesus could be without sin, taking His flesh only from the Virgin Mary, so without need to apply to an Immaculate Conception (which of course Orthodoxy also rejects the IC).

I can't say how many teach this, but it is common enough in evangelical denominations. I've heard it repeatedly from different denominations.

 

[GregConstantine]

"
I have heard at least one Catholic theologian deny the points in your first post, but I've also heard that's what the Catholics teach. I am in no position to say for sure."

As a former Roman Catholic, you can be assured Anastasia, that what Light of the East said in his original post is most emphatically what the Roman Catholics teach.

Do not let some of the more "modern" ones tell you or anyone else otherwise.

 

[jckstraw72]

the fallen mode of human nature is passed on by the fallen mode of reproduction -- that is, sexual reproduction. the Fathers unanimously teach that marriage as we know it and sexual reproductions are God's condescension and blessing to us to be able to reproduce in our fallen condition, but had we not fallen it would not have been so.

this is why Christ did not inherit the fallen mode of nature -- because He was conceived virginally. this is why it makes no sense to say that the Theotokos was immaculately conceived -- because she was conceived in precisely the same way as everyone else -- sexually. It is Christ Who was conceived differently. St. Paisios the Athonite uses precisely this theology to refute the false teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Petros2015]

A man and a woman are heirs to a kingdom, but sell their birthright. By doing so, they sell the birthright of their children as well. That is sort of how I have always looked at it. I often thought it was unfair that the consequences of Adam's sin were passed to me and others, but I have made the same deliberate personal choices of rebellion many times. And yet, I find a path of rescue from it, John 1:12-13. "But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God — children born not of blood, nor will of the flesh, nor will of man, but born of God."

There's an offer of the birthright to be restored.

I often wonder about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It wasn't at all what the serpent promised. It wasn't that after they ate of it they suddenly became aware 'like God' and had freedom of choice between the two. It seemed to be more, that having betrayed the King they passed from a state of grace and Good and into a fallen one, they knew what they had lost. And that Evil was something you couldn't rescue yourself from once you were in it. This makes sense. It is ultimately an offense against God, so he must be a willing partner in the redemption from it.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/141955.Kallistos_Ware

Here's a good quote from "The Orthodox Way" on the subject

“For the Orthodox tradition, then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences both on the physical and the moral level: it, results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis. But does it also imply an inherited guilt? Here Orthodoxy is more guarded. Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse. This picture, which normally passes for the Augustinian view, is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men's suspicions, and hard to win their trust. It means that we are each of us conditioned by the solidarity of the human race in its accumulated wrong-doing and wrong-thinking, and hence wrong-being. And to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin. The gulf grows wider and wider. It is here, in the solidarity of the human race, that we find an explanation for the apparent unjustness of the doctrine of original sin. Why, we ask, should the entire human race suffer because of Adam's fall? Why should all be punished because of one man's sin? The answer is that human beings, made in the image of the Trinitarian God, are interdependent and coinherent. No man is an island. We are 'members one of another'(Eph. 4:25), and so any action, performed by any member of the human race, inevitably affects all the other members. Even though we are not, in the strict sense, guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.”

 

[Light of the East]

Wow!

So far great answers, just what I am looking for as I continue to try to enlighten my understanding (with the help of the Holy Spirit, of course, or I shall remain in darkness). Especially the quote from Metropolitan Ware!

 

[rusmeister]

From the title of the thread, I thought it was an announcement by Lt Uhura.

Put it on screen.

On second thought, never mind.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I have heard at least one Catholic theologian deny the points in your first post, but I've also heard that's what the Catholics teach. I am in no position to say for sure.

I have heard things that might be interpreted a little differently regarding the first humans. I think it is safe to say that death entered the world (and became the fate of all humans) as a result of the curse, because of the fall/Adam's sin. I think that implies that Adam would not have died otherwise ... but I have also heard he was not technically in a state of immortality either. (Remember "lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever" - I think God did Adam an act of mercy by not letting him live forever in that state.)

How sin is transmitted - I have heard it is more a matter of the world being infected with sin. People sin all around us, we all see and grow up in sin. We do not say that man has a "sin nature" that I have ever heard. And yet, something is "bent" in us if you will.

I'll stop there. I don't want to say anything wrong (and welcome and request correction if I have). I listen to and read a variety of Orthodox teachers and Saints, and sometimes it takes hearing from a number on the very same topic to be sure my understanding is thoroughly Orthodox, and I have not yet reached that level of confidence in this matter.

It depends on whether you use "nature" to mean energies or essence. In former sense, it is proper to say we have taken on a sinful nature, not through being conceived, but through our own acts (let's not forget that the Latin concept of actuality is mainly defined as a translation of Aristotle's energies); this former sense is also used often by the Orthodox in describing of Theosis as "partaking of God's nature." In the latter sense, it would be wrong to say we've taken on a sinful nature (and it would be just as wrong to describe Theosis as "partaking of God's nature)

As we know, Roman Catholicism doesn't distinguish between energies and essence, unfortunately. They say God is Actus Purus (the same as pure energies), but following Alcuin in saying that God's energies are not to be distinguished from his essence.

 

[~Anastasia~]

"
I have heard at least one Catholic theologian deny the points in your first post, but I've also heard that's what the Catholics teach. I am in no position to say for sure."

As a former Roman Catholic, you can be assured Anastasia, that what Light of the East said in his original post is most emphatically what the Roman Catholics teach.

Do not let some of the more "modern" ones tell you or anyone else otherwise.

Thank you Greg. That is what I took away overall, but I wasn't going to argue the point in the face of it.

I remember listening to one Catholic teacher - I can't remember who - who was essentially arguing against Orthodoxy and using this point, saying that we were wrong because we misunderstood what Catholicism taught in the first place. But he seemed rather contentious and grasping, and to find certain Catholic teaching unpalatable. Overall he struck me as a less than reliable example. Other than that, I think I've heard a few laypeople deny it. But it seems to me that the bulk of reliable evidence (overwhelming so) support what LotE suggested.

So that's what I thought likely. Though to be honest, it's really only an academic interest that leads me to follow what various other groups teach. I do like to see how theology "evolves" and the normal path is Catholic --> Lutheran/similar --> Evangelical --> Pentecostal / Emergent, with rare but interesting loops back in some cases to Orthodoxy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It depends on whether you use "nature" to mean energies or essence. In former sense, it is proper to say we have taken on a sinful nature, not through being conceived, but through our own acts (let's not forget that the Latin concept of actuality is mainly defined as a translation of Aristotle's energies); this former sense is also used often by the Orthodox in describing of Theosis as "partaking of God's nature." In the latter sense, it would be wrong to say we've taken on a sinful nature (and it would be just as wrong to describe Theosis as "partaking of God's nature)

As we know, Roman Catholicism doesn't distinguish between energies and essence, unfortunately. They say God is Actus Purus (the same as pure energies), but following Alcuin in saying that God's energies are not to be distinguished from his essence.

Thank you. Your first paragraph perhaps makes sense of the confusion in a more precise way. I could not have formulated the words, but it IS the overall sense I get from most Orthodox teachers on the subject.

 

[~Anastasia~]

the fallen mode of human nature is passed on by the fallen mode of reproduction -- that is, sexual reproduction. the Fathers unanimously teach that marriage as we know it and sexual reproductions are God's condescension and blessing to us to be able to reproduce in our fallen condition, but had we not fallen it would not have been so.

this is why Christ did not inherit the fallen mode of nature -- because He was conceived virginally. this is why it makes no sense to say that the Theotokos was immaculately conceived -- because she was conceived in precisely the same way as everyone else -- sexually. It is Christ Who was conceived differently. St. Paisios the Athonite uses precisely this theology to refute the false teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

Ok, Jckstraw ...

I hope that you know that I have the UTMOST respect for you, and my reply is in no way meant any other way. But I must ask because either I am poorly formulating a consensus on this topic, or else I misunderstand what you mean, or I'm missing some nuances or implications. Or I'm missing something else.

But I don't recognize any difference between your first paragraph and Catholic teaching on the subject. (Specifically that we possess a sin nature, transmitted through sexual reproduction.)

And your second paragraph is the teaching I received from various Protestant groups which seemed to develop from the first, yes, and deny the necessity of the IC as you say.

I have heard at least several priests emphatically deny that we may claim humans have a "sin nature". I think that may be complicated by the fact that what one MEANS by that term can vary quite a bit, so it really isn't safe to use in any case just because of being imprecise (at least without clarification).

So I'm not sure exactly what to ask, but I fear you've left me very puzzled?

 

[~Anastasia~]

A man and a woman are heirs to a kingdom, but sell their birthright. By doing so, they sell the birthright of their children as well. That is sort of how I have always looked at it. I often thought it was unfair that the consequences of Adam's sin were passed to me and others, but I have made the same deliberate personal choices of rebellion many times. And yet, I find a path of rescue from it, John 1:12-13. "But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God — children born not of blood, nor will of the flesh, nor will of man, but born of God."

There's an offer of the birthright to be restored.

I often wonder about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It wasn't at all what the serpent promised. It wasn't that after they ate of it they suddenly became aware 'like God' and had freedom of choice between the two. It seemed to be more, that having betrayed the King they passed from a state of grace and Good and into a fallen one, they knew what they had lost. And that Evil was something you couldn't rescue yourself from once you were in it. This makes sense. It is ultimately an offense against God, so he must be a willing partner in the redemption from it.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/141955.Kallistos_Ware

Here's a good quote from "The Orthodox Way" on the subject

“For the Orthodox tradition, then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences both on the physical and the moral level: it, results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis. But does it also imply an inherited guilt? Here Orthodoxy is more guarded. Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse. This picture, which normally passes for the Augustinian view, is unacceptable to Orthodoxy. The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others, and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse men's suspicions, and hard to win their trust. It means that we are each of us conditioned by the solidarity of the human race in its accumulated wrong-doing and wrong-thinking, and hence wrong-being. And to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin. The gulf grows wider and wider. It is here, in the solidarity of the human race, that we find an explanation for the apparent unjustness of the doctrine of original sin. Why, we ask, should the entire human race suffer because of Adam's fall? Why should all be punished because of one man's sin? The answer is that human beings, made in the image of the Trinitarian God, are interdependent and coinherent. No man is an island. We are 'members one of another'(Eph. 4:25), and so any action, performed by any member of the human race, inevitably affects all the other members. Even though we are not, in the strict sense, guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.”

I really like Met. Ware's quote on this.

 

[Light of the East]

It depends on whether you use "nature" to mean energies or essence.

Trying to grasp this.

In former sense, it is proper to say we have taken on a sinful nature, not through being conceived, but through our own acts (let's not forget that the Latin concept of actuality is mainly defined as a translation of Aristotle's energies);

So you are saying (if I am following your argument) that until we actually commit sin, that we are without sin? Does this mean that babies are without sin because they do not have the volition or consent to understand what they are doing?

I think this gets into a very questionable area here, inasmuch as one could then posit that all children are sinless until they come to a point of rationality and ability to make an informed decision to choose evil over good.

OTOH, in just observing very young children, it is easy to see the strain of selfishness in them from a very early age, even before they have the rationality to understand that it is not right (evil, sinful, etc.) to go to another three year old and take his toy from him. The bent to evil seems to be inculcated into the human nature long before the ability to have a rational understanding of what evil is.

Are all human beings born in a state of separation from God that is only remedied by baptism into Christ as spoken of in Romans 6:3? If so, then being separated from God, the natural consequence of that separation would be acts of evil. But we see that even the baptized choose evil over good, even at a young age, which leads me to think that there is more to this than just the idea of whether or not we share in the energies of God. Something inside is driving the child to do wrong, and the question remains -- how did it get there, especially if the child is baptised??

this former sense is also used often by the Orthodox in describing of Theosis as "partaking of God's nature." In the latter sense, it would be wrong to say we've taken on a sinful nature (and it would be just as wrong to describe Theosis as "partaking of God's nature)